Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arpino, G.
Right arrow Articles by Elledge, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arpino, G.
Right arrow Articles by Elledge, R. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 14:233-241, 2003
© 2003 European Society for Medical Oncology

Original Paper

Idoxifene versus tamoxifen: a randomized comparison in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer

G. Arpino1, M. Nair Krishnan2, C. Doval Dinesh3, V. J. Bardou1, G. M. Clark1 and R. M. Elledge1,+

1 Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA; 2 Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum, Kerala; 3 Kidwai Memorial Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Received 15 May 2002; revised 12 August 2002. accepted 19 September 2002

Background:

More efficacious and safer hormonal agents are needed for breast cancer treatment and prevention. Idoxifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that, in preclinical models, has greater antiestrogenic but lower estrogenic activity than tamoxifen.

Patients and methods:

Three hundred and twenty-one postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either tamoxifen or idoxifene as initial endocrine therapy for advanced disease. Data were analyzed based on intention to treat and all the responses were subject to independent review.

Results:

At the time of a second planned interim analysis, the trial was stopped for economic considerations, not for reasons related to safety or efficacy. Complete data for the 219 patients included in the second interim analysis are fully available and reported here. Median age was 59.1 years for idoxifene patients and 59.9 years for tamoxifen patients. Complete response (CR) plus partial response (PR) rates were as follows: tamoxifen, 9%; idoxifene, 13% (P = 0.39). Clinical benefit rate [CR + PR + stable disease (SD) >=6 months] was 34.3% for idoxifene and 38.7% for tamoxifen (P = 0.31). Median time to progression and duration of response were 140 days and 151.5 days, respectively, for tamoxifen compared with 166 days and 218 days for idoxifene. None of these endpoints was significantly different for the two drugs, nor was survival. Adverse events (lethal, serious but not lethal and important but not life threatening) were similar in the two arms.

Conclusions:

Idoxifene was both active and well tolerated in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Idoxifene had similar efficacy and toxicity to tamoxifen in this randomized comparison.

Key words: advanced breast cancer, clinical trial, endocrine therapy, hormone therapy, idoxifene, tamoxifen


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
F. Trotta, G. Apolone, S. Garattini, and G. Tafuri
Stopping a trial early in oncology: for patients or for industry?
Ann. Onc., July 1, 2008; 19(7): 1347 - 1353.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
V. Deshmane, S. Krishnamurthy, A. S. Melemed, P. Peterson, and A. U. Buzdar
Phase III Double-Blind Trial of Arzoxifene Compared With Tamoxifen for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 4967 - 4973.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.